W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Profiles intro

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:10:02 +0100
Message-Id: <340DC6FE-52A9-42BF-A75E-8A2A0220B403@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I think that this discussion may have reached the end of its useful  
life -- just reading all these emails is seriously impeding my  
efforts to get on with real work!

On Wednesday we agreed on a slightly trimmed down version of  
Carsten's text for the FPWD, so the issue is moot (for the time being  
at least).


On 10 Apr 2008, at 15:01, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2008, at 14:06, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
>> Subject: Re: Profiles intro
>> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:11:30 +0100
>>> On 10 Apr 2008, at 13:46, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> Bijan,
>>>> let us not start a row here. I may have been a bit harsh in my
>>> reactions, Carsten hit a nerve:-) I do not think we should go  
>>> down the
>>> road of differentiating among profiles on the basis of whether  
>>> they are
>>> RDF-ish or not. Ie, can we set this aside and get back to the  
>>> original
>>> issue? :-)
>>> Ok, I'll rephrase your point: Regardless of whether it's true or  
>>> not,
>>> RDFishness is not helpful in distinguishing fragments and may cause
>>> extreme negative reactions. Thus, we should find other points for
>>> guidance.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Bijan.
>> Hmm.  This seems like ignoring the elephant in the bathroom.
> You say that like it's a bad thing. If the elephant will only panic  
> and poop all over the place if it thinks you're watching it, then  
> ignoring it is the *right* thing to do.
> Heck, if the elephant will flush and doesn't break anything, it's  
> welcome to use my bathroom without my knowledge anytime it wants!
> Seriously, it's clear that differentiating on "RDFishness" without  
> a lot of discussion is going to cause allergic reaction even in  
> sensible people. So let's be cautious not just to be understood,  
> but not to be misunderstood.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 14:11:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC